Before even
reading this reading, what intrigued me the most in reading this piece was the
title, “How Arab Monarchies Hang On” Many
people of the public know about the recent uprisings in the Middle East; some
examples being protests in Egypt over political rights with economic justice as
well as the Libyans protesting over the political and economic conditions in
their country. However there has not been much media coverage over the states
that managed to either overcome or manage to avoid massive protests overall
which brings us back to the title of the reading. How DID Arab monarchies hang
on?
Basically
what the reading stated was that the general reason why Arab monarchies (Saudi
Arabia, Oman, Qatar, United Aram Emirates, Jordan, Morocco, Kuwait and Bahrain)
managed to endure the protests is because of three factors: cross-cutting
coalitions, hydrocarbon rents and foreign backing (mainly from the United
States). Simply put, cross-cutting coalitions are historic connections between the
ruling family and different social communities. Hydrocarbon rents provides for
most of the social welfare pay-outs as well as the state contracts. Foreign
backing is just as its name suggests: support from foreign states in times of
diplomatic, economic and military crisis. It was originally thought that the reason for
the persistence of the monarchies was due to cultural and institutional approaches.
This was proven wrong however, after these monarchies survived the Arab Spring.
Analysts
changed their views about the survival of monarchies to the “inherent cultural and institutional forces
make sure regimes more durable than their republican peers”. Why is that
though? Putting aside the three factors that allowed Arab monarchies to weather
the Arab Spring; surely the republican states of the Arabian Peninsula have
their own inherent cultural and institutional forces but what makes the
monarchies more durable than the republican states? Is it possible that because
people living in the monarchy states do not have a voice to begin with and they
are okay with that; or is it because the republican states have elections and
they do have a choice but because their elections are manipulated so they feel
as though their voice is robbed from them?
The
whole idea of the three factors, cross-cutting coalitions, hydrocarbon rents
and foreign backing as the success factors of the Arab monarchies during the
Arab Spring makes sense. You have what people want and need, you then use it in
a way that benefits you, repeat. The country is just using their assets to
benefit their country. What country in the world does not try to do that? However,
personally, I would find that being told that I have the ability to voice an
opinion, but not being heard would be more frustrating and disconcerting than
not having a voice at all. Thoughts?
Sources:
Gelvin, J. L.
(2012). The Arab Uprisings: What everyone needs to know. New York:
Oxford University Press, Inc.
Yom, S. L., & Gause III, G. (2012). Resilient Royals: How Arab Monarchies Hang On. Journal of
Democracy, 74-88.
As to your query, I think for someone who has predominantly lived in a democratic state to go to a republican state such as you have mentioned would indeed make it very frustrating for, as you have said have the ability to have an opinion yet for not one to listen to said opinion. I think that perhaps if that was all that was known to you, either way, submission of the opinion not listened to then it would be less of a frustrating issue. Arab monarchies have a very small selectorate and therefore a lot of power in one place. This would make it very hard for anyone who was to feel unsatisfied to be able to make any changes or show this in anyway. The Arab monarchy, as this article shows, is managing to stay in power even though there is a significant decline in monarchies worldwide.
ReplyDeleteGood, concise summary Alex!
ReplyDelete"This was proven wrong however, after these monarchies survived the Arab Spring." Yom and Gause's argument is not that this was proven wrong because monarchies survived the Arab Spring, but because earlier monarchies in the region were often overthrown, and at any rate did not have a great deal of indigenous roots.
"Is it possible that because people living in the monarchy states do not have a voice to begin with and they are okay with that; or is it because the republican states have elections and they do have a choice but because their elections are manipulated so they feel as though their voice is robbed from them?" Good question. But Yom and Gause are essentially arguing that people are ok with not having a voice because they are rich in oil, and hence can provide welfare. If they were not rich, they would be more likely to experience protest. What do you think of that claim?
In response to Xavier's question, I think how rich a monarchy is (provided they redistributed that wealth), would definitely be a strong factor that determines how likely people are to protest. Monarchies still need to appease people to a point.
ReplyDeleteI'd like to know more about breakdowns of other Middle Eastern monarchies (maybe Eqypt?) to contrast with the states posted here. Perhaps comparative research could give more insight.
Jessica - Yom and Gause do discuss some earlier monarchies briefly. The Egyptian monarchy was overthrown by Nasser in 1952, who was a pan-Arab socialist, and a colonel in the Egyptian military; the monarchy was itself of recent colonial roots (the British left Egypt in the 1920s, instituting a monarchy).
Delete